I think you have a mental condition, the amount of out of context quotations and the relentless barrage of here-say evidence (Ironically the same style of evidence you ridicule 20 hours a day every day) leads me to believe you have a slight aneurism, pulsing ever closer. Huehuehue

After 20 years, where is the evidence of a government 911 conspiracy? No evidence was ever found by the major news organizations after all of these years. I have made a career in aviation for well over 40, so I have the experience to determine when 911 conspiracy folks are trying to pull a fast one or simply posting out of shear ignorance.

My Wing commander was in the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77 and I was once sent TDY to Andrews AFB, which is where one unit was involved after the 911 attack. That unit was NOT prepared nor familiar with NORAD protocol for conducting air-to-air intercepts, yet 911 conspiracy folks concocted false stories regarding that unit and the unit at Langley AFB , and that is one reason of many as to why I have stated for the record that claims of 911 conspiracy folks are ignorant-based. In addition, the Air Force did not receive authorization to shoot down anything until after United 93 crashed at Shanksville, and even then, there were commanders who refused to forward the shootdown orders to their pilots.

The fear of accidently shooting down an innocent airliner was real and no one was really prepared for the consequences, but the 911 conspiracy folks don't think of such things, so instead, they concoct unfounded conspiracy theories.

Quote

The funny thing is, there is absolutely zero chance to prove or disprove anything here.

False! When I first read about a so-called modified pod on United 175, I took a closer look and noticed the 911 CT folks were misidentifying aerodynamic fairing and MLG doors , which are standard on all B-767s. One thing that really amazed me is that one 911 conspiracy person actually misidentified the paint scheme on the lower forward fuselage of United 175 as a pod, so I had to find a photo of the lower fuselage of another United B-767 to show a clearer detailed of the paint scheme and afterward, I no longer heard from him. It goes to show that 911 CT folks are not interested in doing homework, or doing it properly when they do.

Did you really think that United Airlines would have grounded its B-767 for many months just so the aircraft could have been modified to carry an explosive-laden pod?

Quote

You all are spouting here-say evidence and quoting minority's of experts whom have opposite ends of the same table.

The 911 CT folks have proven to me they are outside of the loop of reality. For an example, they've claimed that United 93 did not crash at Shanksville, but landed at Cleveland Airport, but upon closer examination, it was determined they actually confused Delta 1989, a B-767 as United 93, which was a B-757. To further add, the 911 CT folks confused scientist from a KC-135 as passengers of United 93. That doesn't say much about where 911 CT folks are coming from.

Quote

There is no conclusion such as 'Yes there is reasonable doubt, I would support a re-investigation'.

There is a conclusion! Your problem is, you visit too many of the conspiracy websites whose members don't know anymore about the 911 facts and evidence than you.

Quote

pen a poll, 'I support a re-investigation',...

Why waste money for a re-investigation? As far as nukes are concerned, some 911 CT folks have taken their silliness to a whole new level.

Where is your evidence the perpetrators were al-qaida and came from a tewowist stronghold in Afghanistan? What evidence do you have that these men were Muslim? What evidence do you have of them using box cutters to frighten 100+ people onto submission?

Why don't you ask the terrorist?

Quote

Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

The funny thing is, there is absolutely zero chance to prove or disprove anything here. You all are spouting here-say evidence and quoting minority's of experts whom have opposite ends of the same table. There is no conclusion such as 'Yes there is reasonable doubt, I would support a re-investigation'. So no I would not like to battle spameagle in a war of ctrl-v, or you for that matter. Open a poll, 'I support a re-investigation', or 'No I do not support a re-investigation' let's settle this XD.

Yes, there is. Reasonable doubt, I mean, for the Nuke theory, which is what this thread is about. There's very reasonable doubt, and plenty of grounds for it. This thread is (or is supposed to be) about the theory that the WTC was brought down by a nuclear device, not the whole interminable question of 9/11 altogether.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

As it's been nearly two years since first starting this thread ,i came across this thought provoking article that answers many questions relating to the nuclear theroy .

VT editor Jeff Smith, at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001 investigating the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, as a team leader on the Able Danger crew with FBI Special Agent Mike Smith, takes us to task on where we have gone and on the explosive material soon to be released.

As it's been nearly two years since first starting this thread ,i came across this thought provoking article that answers many questions relating to the nuclear theroy .

VT editor Jeff Smith, at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001 investigating the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, as a team leader on the Able Danger crew with FBI Special Agent Mike Smith, takes us to task on where we have gone and on the explosive material soon to be released.

If it was a dirty bomb, where are the tens of thousands of radiation victims? EMP indications/impacts? Residual radiation everywhere?
Nukes have very distinct signatures whether detonated above or below ground, and leave unmistakable evidence. And rusted out hulks of burned out cars isn't it.

As it's been nearly two years since first starting this thread ,i came across this thought provoking article that answers many questions relating to the nuclear theroy .

VT editor Jeff Smith, at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001 investigating the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, as a team leader on the Able Danger crew with FBI Special Agent Mike Smith, takes us to task on where we have gone and on the explosive material soon to be released.

Considering that electricity continued to flow and computers, vehicles, cameras and other electronic devices continued to work as the WTC buildings collapsed, we can rule out a nuclear detonation in New York City. In other words, no EMP that would have been associated with a nuclear detonation.

Check out those radiation-proof suits that workers were wearing at ground zero.

As it's been nearly two years since first starting this thread ,i came across this thought provoking article that answers many questions relating to the nuclear theroy .

VT editor Jeff Smith, at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001 investigating the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, as a team leader on the Able Danger crew with FBI Special Agent Mike Smith, takes us to task on where we have gone and on the explosive material soon to be released.

As it's been nearly two years since first starting this thread ,i came across this thought provoking article that answers many questions relating to the nuclear theroy .

VT editor Jeff Smith, at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001 investigating the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, as a team leader on the Able Danger crew with FBI Special Agent Mike Smith, takes us to task on where we have gone and on the explosive material soon to be released.

It seems that you are unaware of the rest of the story relating to VT.

Quote

VETERANS TODAY IS DISINFO

Veterans Today used to be a great source for information but over the last several years, they have really changed their position on 9/11 and now many suspect them of infiltration and deliberately spreading disinformation into the movement. Founder Gordon Duff and others like James Fetzer, Dmitri Khalezov, Donald Fox, and Jeff Prager are just a few editors at Veterans Today that strongly support that “Mini Nukes” brought down the towers after the “Holograms” hit them.

Veterans Today are strongly against the 2300+ Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and do not agree with the theory of controlled demolition theory via Nano Thermite and Explosives. Which has been scientifically proven and is the general consensus within the Truth Movement.

Gordon Duff (Senior Editor at VT) has publicly admitted that 40% of everything he publishes on Veterans Today is “patently false”. My question is how can people still consider VT to be a credible source when the founder himself admits to spreading false information? Ever since James Fetzer joined VT, it has gone to the sh**ts and my new slogan for Veterans Today is “Mini Nukes and Jews”.

happy new year sky i see your still clinging to the belief that a small fire next to core column 79 on the 12th floor could cause a 47 story building to colaspe in under 10 seconds with the first 100 feet moving at free fall speed which has now been admitted to by those clowns at NIST. c'mon really .....................!!! buildings do not fall down by themselves. period .and please find me a new york fire fighter who has ever been asked to pull a building ,fire fighters put fires out and rescue cats from trees there not in the business of pulling building despite what lucky larry will tell you.

...and please find me a new york fire fighter who has ever been asked to pull a building ,fire fighters put fires out and rescue cats from trees there not in the business of pulling building despite what lucky larry will tell you..

Er, that is a conspiracy claim that you are debunking there, nothing to do with the "official story".

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

.and please find me a new york fire fighter who has ever been asked to pull a building ,fire fighters put fires out and rescue cats from trees there not in the business of pulling building despite what lucky larry will tell you.